mikenz66 wrote:Hi Ignobleone,
Several times in these conversations you have stated that "there is more" or "I have not explained it yet". It would be helpful if you would explain your interpretation in a little more detail.

Since I have very little idea what your interpretation is, I am unable to understand or comment on your criticisms of other interpretations.

ignobleone wrote:
We're talking about LB's claim that the suttas is incomplete regarding jhana, not about completeness of the whole suttas. He speaks jhana only in terms of the jhana factors, yet he says the suttas is incomplete - he cannot find anything else other than the jhana factors, while there's more.

Several times in these conversations you have stated that "there is more" or "I have not explained it yet". It would be helpful if you would explain your interpretation in a little more detail.

Since I have very little idea what your interpretation is, I am unable to understand or comment on your criticisms of other interpretations.

Mike

p.4 of the thread and I am none the wiser as to the substance of the actual disagreement with Leigh Brasington. Is it just that he allegedly lacks the necessary faith in the Canon and the Sangha, or is there anything controversial in what he teaches?

Boggles my little mind how difficult it seems to come to the point in some of these threads...

From this response, you don't know the basis of LB's conviction. Then why do you believe him? Why do you defend him? Why are you on his side?
It's as if you ask someone (say, your friend) to get a medicine from a doctor, he comes back with the medicine but he is not sure whether he went exactly to your doctor, but you drink the medicine anyway.

tiltbillings wrote:You have already stated that there are no iddhis involved, so there is no way you can know the heart of this man without either seeing it with iddhis, or you could have directly asking him, and since yo have not claimed to have directly asked him, what is left is that poor Brasington simply does not fit your particular notion of what conviction should be. That Brasington does not meet your particular notion of conviction does not mean anything other than he does not meet your particular notion of conviction.

Yes, no one needs any iddhi to know it. There's another way. His interview you posted in the other thread and his website have enough clues to know the basis of his conviction. I don't need to meet him in person.
And particular notion of conviction is there in the suttas, I don't make it up.

Dan74 wrote:
p.4 of the thread and I am none the wiser as to the substance of the actual disagreement with Leigh Brasington. Is it just that he allegedly lacks the necessary faith in the Canon and the Sangha, or is there anything controversial in what he teaches?

Boggles my little mind how difficult it seems to come to the point in some of these threads...

The answer is both. Both are related.
It's only difficult for some people.

Dan74 wrote:
p.4 of the thread and I am none the wiser as to the substance of the actual disagreement with Leigh Brasington. Is it just that he allegedly lacks the necessary faith in the Canon and the Sangha, or is there anything controversial in what he teaches?

Boggles my little mind how difficult it seems to come to the point in some of these threads...

The answer is both. Both are related.
It's only difficult for some people.

The title of this thread is "Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington" so I had hoped to see the substance of this disagreement, which usually means that people disagree with some of what Brasington teaches, say why and back it up with texts, logic and experience. I am sorry but I fail to see this after nearly 4 pages.

Dan74 wrote:
p.4 of the thread and I am none the wiser as to the substance of the actual disagreement with Leigh Brasington. Is it just that he allegedly lacks the necessary faith in the Canon and the Sangha, or is there anything controversial in what he teaches?

Boggles my little mind how difficult it seems to come to the point in some of these threads...

The answer is both. Both are related.
It's only difficult for some people.

The title of this thread is "Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington" so I had hoped to see the substance of this disagreement, which usually means that people disagree with some of what Brasington teaches, say why and back it up with texts, logic and experience. I am sorry but I fail to see this after nearly 4 pages.

Indeed.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Dan74 wrote:
p.4 of the thread and I am none the wiser as to the substance of the actual disagreement with Leigh Brasington. Is it just that he allegedly lacks the necessary faith in the Canon and the Sangha, or is there anything controversial in what he teaches?

Boggles my little mind how difficult it seems to come to the point in some of these threads...

The answer is both. Both are related.
It's only difficult for some people.

The title of this thread is "Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington" so I had hoped to see the substance of this disagreement, which usually means that people disagree with some of what Brasington teaches, say why and back it up with texts, logic and experience. I am sorry but I fail to see this after nearly 4 pages.

From this response, you don't know the basis of LB's conviction. Then why do you believe him? Why do you defend him? Why are you on his side?
It's as if you ask someone (say, your friend) to get a medicine from a doctor, he comes back with the medicine but he is not sure whether he went exactly to your doctor, but you drink the medicine anyway.

You do not know the basis of Brasington's conviction, but you attack him for not believing the way you do. You have given me no basis for considering your belief as being the arbiter of who is or is not sufficiently Buddhist.

tiltbillings wrote:You have already stated that there are no iddhis involved, so there is no way you can know the heart of this man without either seeing it with iddhis, or you could have directly asking him, and since yo have not claimed to have directly asked him, what is left is that poor Brasington simply does not fit your particular notion of what conviction should be. That Brasington does not meet your particular notion of conviction does not mean anything other than he does not meet your particular notion of conviction.

Yes, no one needs any iddhi to know it. There's another way. His interview you posted in the other thread and his website have enough clues to know the basis of his conviction. I don't need to meet him in person.
And particular notion of conviction is there in the suttas, I don't make it up.

I am familar with the suttas you have referenced, and quite frankly you have not shown the Brasington in any way falls short of having saddha in the Buddha-Dhamma. You claim it of him because he does not believe the way you do, but all you can truthfully say is that he does not believe the the way you. You have no real knowledge of his conviction, which is a matter of the mind/heart, you have shown no real basis for claiming he lacks conviction/saddha.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Dan74 wrote:
p.4 of the thread and I am none the wiser as to the substance of the actual disagreement with Leigh Brasington. Is it just that he allegedly lacks the necessary faith in the Canon and the Sangha, or is there anything controversial in what he teaches?

Boggles my little mind how difficult it seems to come to the point in some of these threads...

The answer is both. Both are related.
It's only difficult for some people.

The title of this thread is "Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington" so I had hoped to see the substance of this disagreement, which usually means that people disagree with some of what Brasington teaches, say why and back it up with texts, logic and experience. I am sorry but I fail to see this after nearly 4 pages.

The argument is simple: Brasington does not believe in things exactly as does ignobleone and thus he lack saddha, conviction/faith, according to ignobleone. And you are absolutely correct in that ignobleone has given us no real basis for his accusation of Brasington.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Since what has lead to the complaint is that Brasington lacks conviction is his stating: "it's because there are three major sources of jhana material, all of which are incomplete." It is worth looking at that in its fuller context:

LB: Partially, it's because there are three major sources of jhana material, all of which are incomplete. There are the suttas in which the descriptions of the jhanas are very simple. There is no-how-to in the suttas, thus leaving them open for quite a broad range of interpretation. Since Pali is not even a currently spoken language, many questions cannot be definitively answered. For example, what does "vitakka" really mean in the context of the jhanas? This leads to people interpreting this sparse material in different, yet internally consistent ways.

A second source is the Abhidhamma, which interprets the jhanas differently from what you find in the suttas. There you find a scheme of five Jhanas covering the same territory as covered by four jhanas in the suttas. Finally, you have the Visuddhimagga, which gives quite a different interpretation from what you find in the suttas; a much deeper level of concentration is being taught.

So we have different schemes in the literature, and it depends to some extent on where someone is learning the jhanas, whom they're learning them from, and what literature is being used in that tradition. This material has been preserved for up to 2,500 years, with people making little tweaks along the way and not necessarily communicating with one another, and that has also led to different interpretations.http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 16#p140097" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brasington is not showing a lack of conviction/saddha here, he is simply stating what is well known to any of those who have looked at this issue in detail.

We also need to keep in mind, even according to the suttas the practices of meditation were taught in the context of teachers:

"Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four?

"There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. Then there is the case of the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness. Then there is the case of the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. And then there is the case of the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"The individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment and ask him: 'How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way. Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

"As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) fermentations.

@tiltbillings
I want assurance that you will answer all question, instead of stating or talking about something else.
I've seen how difficult it is just to get a simple yes/no answer from you. I answer your questions, I expect you do too.
A promise will assure it.

ignobleone wrote:@tiltbillings
I want assurance that you will answer all question, instead of stating or talking about something else.

If you think I am talking about something else, you obviously don't get it.

I've seen how difficult it is just to get a simple yes/no answer from you.

Things are not always a matter of a "simple yes/no answer."

I answer your questions

No, you do not.

A promise will assure it.

We have it that you think Brasington lacks conviction/saddha, and we have it that the reason you say this is that he simply does not believe that way you do, but when asked why we should take your belief as being the arbiter of of conviction/saddha, you reference a couple of suttas that speak of saddha, but, alas, they do not really tell us why we should take your word about Brasington, nor do the suttas you reference tell us that we must believe the way you do. Your claim about Brasington is naught more than a highly subjective value judgment for which you have yet to give us any real basis for considering. You have given to me and to others here what we need to see from where you are coming. No promises needed. It is your choice. You can participate or not. At this point, I don't care.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

The anonymous user (who via pm warned me this forum is cult) refers to this thread in his latest pm. I haven't finished with this thread, but he says I am not being able to refute Leigh Brasington. So, I shall continue.

tiltbillings wrote:We have it that you think Brasington lacks conviction/saddha, and we have it that the reason you say this is that he simply does not believe that way you do, but when asked why we should take your belief as being the arbiter of of conviction/saddha, you reference a couple of suttas that speak of saddha, but, alas, they do not really tell us why we should take your word about Brasington, nor do the suttas you reference tell us that we must believe the way you do. Your claim about Brasington is naught more than a highly subjective value judgment for which you have yet to give us any real basis for considering. You have given to me and to others here what we need to see from where you are coming.

AFAIK, "the way I do" is by using sadha in the Buddha-Dhamma, as I have explained somewhere above (on p.2-3). If you say Brasington simply doesn't believe "the way I do", doesn't it mean Brasington doesn't use/have sadha? Aren't you refuting yourself? Please CMIIW.

The "way you do" doesn't refer to your methods, but your conclusions about a specific individual. To say those conclusions are the 'right ones' is the problem here, because that assertion has not been supported by your posts.

To think that saddha means you get to judge others is horribly mistaken. You can argue a point of doctrine or discipline, but ad hominem is out of place.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

ignobleone wrote:The anonymous user (who via pm warned me this forum is cult) refers to this thread in his latest pm. I haven't finished with this thread, but he says I am not being able to refute Leigh Brasington. So, I shall continue.

tiltbillings wrote:We have it that you think Brasington lacks conviction/saddha, and we have it that the reason you say this is that he simply does not believe that way you do, but when asked why we should take your belief as being the arbiter of of conviction/saddha, you reference a couple of suttas that speak of saddha, but, alas, they do not really tell us why we should take your word about Brasington, nor do the suttas you reference tell us that we must believe the way you do. Your claim about Brasington is naught more than a highly subjective value judgment for which you have yet to give us any real basis for considering. You have given to me and to others here what we need to see from where you are coming.

AFAIK, "the way I do" is by using sadha in the Buddha-Dhamma, as I have explained somewhere above (on p.2-3). If you say Brasington simply doesn't believe "the way I do", doesn't it mean Brasington doesn't use/have sadha? Aren't you refuting yourself? Please CMIIW.

Refuting myself? Not at all. The problem lies with your continually less than clear exposition of your position. Daverupa seems to have nailed it:

The "way you do" doesn't refer to your methods, but your conclusions about a specific individual. To say those conclusions are the 'right ones' is the problem here, because that assertion has not been supported by your posts. To think that saddha means you get to judge others is horribly mistaken. You can argue a point of doctrine or discipline, but ad hominem is out of place

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

tiltbillings wrote:Refuting myself? Not at all. The problem lies with your continually less than clear exposition of your position. Daverupa seems to have nailed it:

The "way you do" doesn't refer to your methods, but your conclusions about a specific individual. To say those conclusions are the 'right ones' is the problem here, because that assertion has not been supported by your posts. To think that saddha means you get to judge others is horribly mistaken. You can argue a point of doctrine or discipline, but ad hominem is out of place

Okay, now what you mean is clear. I should have shown a concrete example and then relate it to sadha. Remember I said you can know from his website, no mind-reading needed.
Consider these quotes from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html and notice the bold parts:

SN 22.57 wrote:"And what is feeling? These six bodies of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling. From the origination of contact comes the origination of feeling. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of feeling... The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on feeling: that is the allure of feeling. The fact that feeling is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of feeling. The subduing of desire & passion for feeling, the abandoning of desire & passion for feeling: that is the escape from feeling...
.
.
.
"For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing consciousness in this way, directly knowing the origination of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the cessation of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the allure of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the drawback of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the escape from consciousness in this way, are practicing for disenchantment — dispassion — cessation with regard to consciousness, they are practicing rightly. Those who are practicing rightly are firmly based in this doctrine & discipline. And any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing consciousness in this way, directly knowing the origination of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the cessation of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the allure of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the drawback of consciousness in this way, directly knowing the escape from consciousness in this way, are — from disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to consciousness — released, they are well-released. Those who are well-released are fully accomplished. And with those who are fully accomplished, there is no cycle for the sake of describing them.

LB wrote:The hard part is the do nothing else part. You put your attention on the pleasant sensation, and nothing happens, so you might think to yourself, "He said something was supposed to happen." No, I did not say to make comments about watching the pleasant sensation. Or, you might put your attention on the pleasant sensation and it starts to increase, so you think, "Oh! Oh! Something's happening!" No. Or it comes up just a little bit and then it stops, and you sort of try and help it. No. None of this works.

You are to simply observe the pleasant sensation. You become totally immersed in the pleasantness of the pleasant sensation. And I mean by this just what I say: the pleasantness of the pleasant sensation. I don't mean the location of the pleasant sensation; nor its intensity; nor its duration. I don't mean whether the pleasant sensation is increasing or decreasing or staying the same. Just focus entirely upon the pleasant aspect of the pleasant sensation, and the jhana will arise on its own.

He doesn't practice rightly since he doesn't follow the Buddha's instruction. He also missed some other clues in suttas. It's because he doesn't believe the instruction is quite well preserved (sutta is incomplete), thus he established his own subjective measure.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

ignobleone wrote:He doesn't practice rightly since he doesn't follow the Buddha's instruction. He also missed some other clues in suttas. It's because he doesn't believe the instruction is quite well preserved (sutta is incomplete), thus he established his own subjective measure.

That assumes that you know what the absolute right way to practice is, and it assumes that you are the arbiter of how the practice is to be done and how the suttas must be interpreted, which you have not shown to be the case. It is your opinion that he does not practice rightly, and you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I find it less than convincing.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

ignobleone wrote:He doesn't practice rightly since he doesn't follow the Buddha's instruction. He also missed some other clues in suttas. It's because he doesn't believe the instruction is quite well preserved (sutta is incomplete), thus he established his own subjective measure.

So, to have practiced rightly we should first believe that suttas are well preserved and complete?

ignobleone wrote:He doesn't practice rightly since he doesn't follow the Buddha's instruction. He also missed some other clues in suttas.

We cannot be so sure! Same thing can be said of any teacher or tradition based on our personal perspectives and interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. But I don't think it's productive to give negative comments about the practice of another well-established teacher or tradition.

ignobleone wrote:He doesn't practice rightly since he doesn't follow the Buddha's instruction. He also missed some other clues in suttas. It's because he doesn't believe the instruction is quite well preserved (sutta is incomplete), thus he established his own subjective measure.

So, to have practiced rightly we should first believe that suttas are well preserved and complete?

This question only shows no Buddhist faith. Read this thread from the beginning and you will find the answer. I'm tired to repeat it again and again.

ignobleone wrote:He doesn't practice rightly since he doesn't follow the Buddha's instruction. He also missed some other clues in suttas.

We cannot be so sure! Same thing can be said of any teacher or tradition based on our personal perspectives and interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. But I don't think it's productive to give negative comments about the practice of another well-established teacher or tradition.

Some westerners have no Buddhist faith, yet they learn Buddhism. No faith, they only have doubts. Some are even very stubborn they doubt the obvious. The Dalai Lama has nailed it, "homeless inside yourself".